Ex-Wife Appeared To Get Large Sums of Cash From Casino Business and Parents. Carol Highsmith, photographer. Library of Congress. In Marriage of Aguina & Kang, Case No. E057770 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 14, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife was ordered to pay temporary needs-based fees to ex-husband of $10,000 under Family Code sections
CCP § 664.6 Settlement Enforcement Provisions Did Not Apply. The Third District in Marriage of Mead and Williams-Mead, Case No. C073814 (3d Dist. Aug. 6, 2014) (unpublished), after almost 10 years of unsuccessful litigation by ex-husband against ex-wife, seemed to finally have had enough. Ex-husband appealed an $80,201 attorney’s fees award to
Innovative Futuristic Award Sustained Upon Review. Marriage of Chan, Case No. B242788 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 4, 2014) (unpublished) is interesting for the “needs-based” futuristic attorney’s fees component awarded to ex-wife under Family Code section 2030/2032. In this one, the family law judge indicated that, for on-going fees incurred by ex-wife,
Husband Did Not Show He Could Not Pay Sanctions Award. After 25 years of marriage, husband got hit with a Family Code section 271 sanctions order of $14,872 in fees/expended incurred by ex-wife mainly based on encumbering property without consent after filing of the restraining order going into effect after the filing of
Prior Award of $160,000 in Fees and Transfer of Valuable Property to Wife Sufficed. When you are in family law court, make sure you consider all the equities before seeking needs-based fees or Family Code section 271 sanctions. In Marriage of Davis, Case No. B243382 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 17, 2014)
Husband Provided Equivalent Judicial Council Information, With Wife Having the Better Standard of Living Based on Income From a “New Mate.” Ex-wife in Buchanan v. Alhino, Case No. C072653 (3d Dist. June 17, 2014) (unpublished) appealed a family law order directing that she contribute $4,000 toward ex-husband’s attorney’s fees under the needs-based statutes (Family
Waiver Was the Result. In Marriage of Williamson, Case No. B238067 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 12, 2014) (published), wife—who was awarded $10,000 in fees and costs as against husband—claimed she was denied due process by not being able to present relevant evidence on the issue before judgment was entered. However, the
Remand to Consider in Light of Wife’s Changed Income Picture. Updated, fresh income and expense statements are key in support and Family Code section 2030/2032 needs-based fee proceedings. Using outdated statements can result in a reversal under the circumstances, as it did in Marriage of Ching, Case No. G049628 (4th Dist., Div. 3
Mother’s Trial Tactics And Income Weighted in Properly Denying Fees. Wood v. Fard, Case No. G048418 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 30, 2014), authored by Justice Aronson on behalf of a 3-0 panel, contains a nice discussion of the standards to be used in awarding attorney’s fees in child custody disputes under the
Deferential Abuse of Discretion Standard Sealed the Deal. In Marriage of Browne, Case No. A139607 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 27, 2014) (unpublished), ex-husband got hit with a $3,000 Family Code section 271 sanctions for filing “too many motions” against ex-wife. That determination was affirmed on appeal. Although the written order did not
